Libertarian Poll !

[TomCollins]

To be fair, Republicans, although they preach smaller government, have not shrunk government (or even maintained the current size) under any administration.

The argument Republicans = Economic Freedom, Democrats = Civil Liberties is completely trash when it comes to walking the walk.

[John Cole]

Kurn, just wondering, how much are you willing to pay in taxes?

[MMMMMM]

I pretty much agree.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Kurn, just wondering, how much are you willing to pay in taxes?

Being a law-abiding citizen, I'm willing to pay whatever the law says I must. That doesn't mean I have to agree with the amount.

Philosophically, I oppose the taxation of income. An individual's income is derived from a trade off of time and labor for money. The one thing we can never recoup is time. When the government says it has a right to a portion of your income it is saying it owns a portion of your time which means a portion of your life.

My biggest argument is that there is no serious movement to put an absolute cap on taxes; a rate above which only a 75% majority of both houses could raise.

There will never be a shortage of well-meant ideas asking to be funded by the public coffers. In fact, the amount of money needed to fund these good ideas will *always* exceed the amount of money the government has to disburse. Thus without a constitutional limity on taxation, levels will creep up constantly.

The first thing to go must be any concept of graduated income tax. There is nothing more totalitarian than the idea that the more money you earn, the less you deserve it. That aspect of taxation absolutely is the moral equivalent of slavery.

Personally, I liked Steve Forbes' solution. 0% on the first $36,000 and 17% on every dollar over that. No deductions. Again, I don't agree with the taxation of income, but I can compromise.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And I was informing you that you are wrong. Read the libertarian party platform.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont need to read this at all. I am talking about libertarian posts on this forum. As far as I am concerned they show the bias I have outlined.

I only talked about abortion etc in counter to your comment about the left and drugs.

I understand the platform of the Libertarian party, that is why I am questioning why libertarian posters on this forum seem much more motivated about attacking democrats about tax than they do republicans and there trend of interfering more heavily in our personal day to day choices.

Instead of just informing me that I am wrong, perhaps try constructing an actual arguement that proves that assertion.

[/ QUOTE ]


The answer is quite simple if you think about it.


There aren't too many discussions here about abortion or gay marriage, but there are many discussions about fiscal policy. Most of the Republicans here are not "christian right" type republicans, so those discussion don't come up.

natedogg

[Cyrus]

"I oppose the taxation of income."

Assuming you are not suggesting that every man should live by himself (or herself), how are simply communal things, such as corner traffic lights or defense, going to be financed?

Unless you are suggesting that every thing should be privately financed.

[natedogg]

Note that he said he opposes the taxation of income

There are other ways to tax, such as with a consumption tax.

natedogg

[tolbiny]

So what if i belong to a religion that allows gay marrige. Should the government recongize my marrige as an "officail" marrige and not the ones of people who don't belo;ng to a religion that endorses their unions?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Unless you are suggesting that every thing should be privately financed.

Not at all. The personal income tax contributes less than half of all US tax revenue. Eliminate that, add some form of use tax to make up about 1/3 of what's missing and cut the fat in the federal government.

But you're avoiding the real question. Should there be a limit on how much of your income the government can take? Don't say 'it depends on what it's used for.' That's a cop out. Is the government our caretaker or our servant?

Most Republican voters actually think they're voting for a low-tax, small-government party. That's false of course. During Clinton's 2nd term, the GOP-majority Congress passed budgets higher than Clinton presented to them. If we the people have no choice whether or not we pay taxes, how do we control our representatives who promise one thing and do something different?

If the federal tax coffers were half what they are now, how could this administration finance the war? They'd have to float war bonds. Then we the people wouldn't have to wait until the election to vote on the war, we could have voted with our wallets two years ago.

[rjc199]

So you believe that the only proper taxation is the taxation on property owned rather than money earned?